These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

1805 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16820657)

  • 1. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
    Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
    Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
    Turcotte C; Drolet P; Girard M
    Can J Anaesth; 2004; 51(6):549-56. PubMed ID: 15197116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
    Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
    Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Does online submission of manuscripts improve efficiency?
    Govender P; Buckley O; McAuley G; O'Brien J; Torreggiani WC
    JBR-BTR; 2008; 91(6):231-4. PubMed ID: 19202995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003.
    Liesegang TJ; Shaikh M; Crook JE
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Apr; 143(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 17276380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
    Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
    Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The fate of epidemiologic manuscripts: a study of papers submitted to epidemiology.
    Hall SA; Wilcox AJ
    Epidemiology; 2007 Mar; 18(2):262-5. PubMed ID: 17301708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
    Enquselassie F
    Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
    Armstrong AW; Idriss SZ; Kimball AB; Bernhard JD
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Apr; 58(4):632-5. PubMed ID: 18249470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Outcomes of rejected Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology manuscripts.
    Silberzweig JE; Khorsandi AS
    J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2008 Nov; 19(11):1620-3. PubMed ID: 18693043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Analysis of submissions, editorial and peer-review process, and outcome of manuscripts submitted to the
    Gupta V; Bhatia R; Pathak M; Ramam M
    Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol; 2020; 86(5):519-525. PubMed ID: 32167071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
    Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [The percentage of articles which were accepted or rejected for publication in the Dutch Journal of Medicine in 1997].
    Bloemenkamp DG; Hart W; Overbeke AJ
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Jan; 143(3):157-9. PubMed ID: 10086132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.
    Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Odibo AO; Chauhan SP; Smulian JC; Oyelese Y
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):703.e1-5. PubMed ID: 24983685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
    Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
    Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Author perception of peer review.
    Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR
    Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Improvement and decision-making process of an article].
    Matías-Guiu J; García Ramos R
    Neurologia; 2009; 24(6):353-8. PubMed ID: 19798600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 91.